Lefty Supremes Kagan & Breyer Tell Why They Sided With People of Faith In Colorado Gay Cake Issue

[Snouter]

Kagan and Breyer however are steeped liberals. They're just barely to the right of Ginsburg.

Actually all 3 are Jews. In other words, they make "decisions" only to undermine Whites. Nothing will make sense unless you acknowledge that reality.

 

[Silhouette]

Kagan and Breyer however are steeped liberals. They're just barely to the right of Ginsburg.

Actually all 3 are Jews. In other words, they make "decisions" only to undermine Whites. Nothing will make sense unless you acknowledge that reality.

WTF?

Please make this a normal discussion. I've known plenty of Jews who make really keen decisions and I've always found them to be on the conservative side. And several Jews have actually been some of the people who have helped me out of a jamb more than once. Maybe liberal Jews? The key determiner being "liberal"..

 

[Silhouette]

Here's what our new Supreme had to say:

Gorsuch:
******
..As the Court explains, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to act neutrally toward Jack Phillips’s religious faith. Maybe most notably, the Commission allowed three other bakers to refuse a customer’s request that would have required them to violate their secular commitments. Yet it denied the same accommodation to Mr. Phillips when he refused a customer’s request that would have required him to violate his religious beliefs. Ante, at 14–16. As the Court also explains, the only reason the Commission seemed to supply for its discrimination was that it found Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs “offensive.” Ibid. That kind of judgmental dismissal of a sincerely held religious belief is, of course, antithetical to the First Amendment and cannot begin to satisfy strict scrutiny. The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all. Because the Court documents each of these points carefully and thoroughly, I am pleased to join its opinion in full

******

So it was about 1st Amendment protections and the lengths to which a government body can hold those against a person when seeking punitive measures on behalf of LGBT or any other onerous lifestyle-cult that seeks to make other people of faith come to heel...OR ELSE!...based on subjective government findings of what it considers, region by region, "an offensive religious stance".

As I said before, the baker has a case on his hands against the city in Colorado for violating his Constitutional rights. 1st Amendment. The Justices couldn't have been more clear. Their rebuke was in gentleman's terms "scathing" of the City that violated these rights of the baker.

 

[Silhouette]

Gorsuch outlines the nature of the baker's objections:

*****
….take the undisputed facts of Mr. Phillips’s case. Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins approached Mr. Phillips about creating a cake to celebrate their wedding. App. 168. Mr. Phillips explained that he could not prepare a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding consistent with his religious faith. Id., at 168–169. But Mr. Phillips offered to make other baked goods for the couple, including cakes celebrating other occasions. Ibid. Later, Mr. Phillips testified without contradiction that he would have refused to create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage for any customer, regardless of his or her sexual orientation. Id., at 166–167 (“I will not design and create wedding cakes for a same-sex wedding regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer”).

******

Now it seems to me that the Court is protecting the right of any baker who refuses to bake a cake for the LGBT lifestylists based on their strongly held moral convictions.

 

[Silhouette]

Another poster had said recently that the state stepping in to blast "separation of church and state!" is a form of covert exclusion of people of faith in a given conversation. Because in this case, the state stepped in on subjective dogmatic principle on behalf of the cult of LGBT. So that is a combination of "church and state"....Which the Court found problematic.

That is especially true when you realize that the Court just indicated that LGBT and their state apologist/promoters are a religion, or at least a lifestyle of opposing values. The Court said that the state does not get to make the subjective call that something is offensive to it. Because then the state is declaring its own form of religion it expects others to adhere to...OR ELSE..

What's important to remember here is that if the denial for a cake was based on race, religion (bona fide, not covert/cult), actual gender or country of origin, then the Decision would've been different. Yes, it would've been. So what the Court was recognizing in its decision without actually enunciating it as clearly as I am here is that LGBTQPP etc. etc. etc. are BEHAVIORS of a LIFESTYLE. As such they have equal weight in the law when it comes to being discriminatory towards people of faith in their lifestyle. (technically that's not true because actual declared religions have clear enumerated protections under the US Constitution, I'm unaware that lifestyles do). That's what the Court meant when it said the state must take a "neutral" stance towards people of faith's right to object. They were saying "look, it's one lifestyle vs another and both have equal weight".

So the only recourse any state or government has is to force all business owners to do anything a customer asks within their scope of business, even if it is wholly repugnant to the core of their being. And that includes say, requiring a gay graphic designer to print a mammoth billboard for a busy state highway that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". If he refuses, and billboards are his jam for everyone else, then he gets fined, rebuked, etc. etc. etc. Either it's both or neither.

And I suspect this is building up to "neither". "The right to refuse service" (based on values that don't include race, actual gender, religion and country of origin) as a private business owner will be invoked. And then the marketplace will decide who stays in business and who doesn't. Not some state entity as the hit man for a deviant sex cult.

As to the first paragraph of this post I'll add one more thing. I think this is a warning shot across the bow for Dumont v Lyon. If the lesbians in Dumont seek to defund faith orphanages, perhaps any orphanage that touts itself as "LGBT-(cult) friendly!" will have to also be defunded. Because that's a promotion of another "faith". And if they succeed remember, faith-based or sympathetic outfits can't receive state funds.....​

 

[Lakhota]

What goes around comes around.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually all 3 are Jews. In other words, they make "decisions" only to undermine Whites. Nothing will make sense unless you acknowledge that reality.

Tha Goddamn JOOOOOOOZZZZ!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What goes around comes around.

Yes, let people live with the consequences of their bigotry.

Government force is not the answer. The Court was right.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ The marketplace will decide. Being willing to do anything for anyone for money is not a sign of a good person by the way.

 

[Syriusly]

I think Keegan was always a libertarian, but she has thrown bones to the collectivist agenda as payback for her appointment. I think she will side with liberty much more in the future.

Kennedy (the only libertarian on the Court) has a great deal of influence on the other justices.

Ginsberg is too old to be a greeter at Walmart.

No surprise that a another Trumpster despises older Americans.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

^^ The marketplace will decide. Being willing to do anything for anyone for money is not a sign of a good person by the way.

It is a sign of a good business person, at least in this context.


Let the wet blanket bigots rot. Don't make them do shit.

 

[Syriusly]

What goes around comes around.

Yes, let people live with the consequences of their bigotry.

Government force is not the answer. The Court was right.

I may not agree with everything in the decision- but unlike Silhouette- I will not pretend that the Supreme Court decision never exists or that the decision itself is 'illegal'

 

[Silhouette]

^^ The marketplace will decide. Being willing to do anything for anyone for money is not a sign of a good person by the way.

It is a sign of a good business person, at least in this context.


Let the wet blanket bigots rot. Don't make them do shit.

So you have full confidence that people of morality are a dying breed then? You may be right. But you may be wrong.

Social pendulums have a stubborn habit of swinging back in the other direction once they've reached their apex. Calling two men who use each other's assholes as artificial vaginas, and all the disease that brings, "as married" is about as far as the pendulum can swing; unless they also pass laws that grown men can bugger boys. That'll be next. I have faith that the public has reached it's maximum of tolerance on the deviant sex cult and a return to basic values is imminent. The pendulum's return swing always appears slow at the very beginning.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No surprise that a another Trumpster despises older Americans.

Are you crying? Seriously?

 

[Syriusly]

Kagan and Breyer however are steeped liberals. They're just barely to the right of Ginsburg.

Actually all 3 are Jews. In other words, they make "decisions" only to undermine Whites. Nothing will make sense unless you acknowledge that reality.

Always fascinating to hear from the Trump supporters.

 

[OKTexas]

Kennedy wrote the Opinion on behalf of the Court. He's a middle grounder.

Kagan and Breyer however are steeped liberals. They're just barely to the right of Ginsburg. So their opinions are a bit more deserving of the microscope in this situation because as future challenges check back in with this case, they must acknowledge that even the liberal opinion concurs.

Kagan wrote this but Breyer concurred. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
On what would be the next page after page 18 on the Opinion of the Court written by Kennedy.

********
Pages 1-2

“It is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Ante, at 9. But in upholding that principle, state actors cannot show hostility to religious views; rather, they must give those views “neutral and respectful consideration.” Ante, at 12. I join the Court’s opinion in full because I believe the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not satisfy that obligation. I write separately to elaborate on one of the bases for the Court’s holding.

The Court partly relies on the “disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of [three] other bakers” who “objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience.” Ante, at 14, 18. In the latter cases, a customer named William Jack sought “cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text”; the bakers whom he approached refused to make them. Ante, at 15; see post, at 3 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (further describing the requested cakes). Those bakers prevailed before the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Commission, while Phillips—who objected for religious reasons to baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple—did not. The Court finds that the legal reasoning of the state agencies differed in significant ways as between the Jack cases and the Phillips case. See ante, at 15. And the Court takes especial note of the suggestion made by the Colorado Court of Appeals, in comparing those cases, that the state agencies found the message Jack requested “offensive [in] nature.” Ante, at 16 (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Court states, a “principled rationale for the difference in treatment” cannot be “based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ibid.

Page 4

Colorado can treat a baker who discriminates based on sexual orientation differently from a baker who does not discriminate on that or any other prohibited ground. But only, as the Court rightly says, if the State’s decisions are not infected by religious hostility or bias. I accordingly concur.

********

So what I'm reading here is what looks like a punt back to Colorado to retool their language and handling of the Christian baker.

But what has Kagan (the uber-liberal, remember) really said and laid down in concrete with respect to "the message" to Colorado and the baker? Kagan said "you will be nice to Christians and respectful, and considerate of their beliefs of conscience." And "no government may make the determination what is considered offensive to a person of faith". And "no government can punish a person of faith in the marketplace using hostility towards their religion or bias". Egads! A LIBERAL championed religious freedoms???

What I'm reading between the lines is, at least from Kagan, that she is sending a message "down below" that state or local governments cannot launch attacks or punitive measures on people of faith based on those people's legitimate rejection of participating in an act that would make them abdicate their faith.

More simply put, even the ,most liberal blue Justice on the Court just right of Ginsburg said "people of faith in business can object to participation in gay weddings without punishment. They must be respected as such and left the fuck alone".

Discuss.​

If you read the majority decision, the State Commission showed open hostility toward Phillips religion. One commissioner openly derided Phillips faith and all the other didn't say a word. The court basically said religion must be given the same weight as any other evidence in a case. The florist case should provide further guidance when it is decided.


.

 

[Silhouette]

I may not agree with everything in the decision- but unlike Silhouette- I will not pretend that the Supreme Court decision never exists or that the decision itself is 'illegal'

Well when was the last time a judge sitting on a case you were a defendant in announced three weeks before your trial on public TV "I think Syriusly is guilty of the crime accused against her"? If that happened to you, you'd be talking about how illegal that was.

In what way is that different from Ginsburg announcing to the press three weeks before Obergefell that in her Opinion (with a capital "O") "America is ready for gay marriage"?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Social pendulums have a stubborn habit of swinging back in the other direction once they've reached their apex. Calling two men who use each other's assholes as artificial vaginas, and all the disease that brings, "as married" is about as far as the pendulum can swing; unless they also pass laws that grown men can bugger boys. That'll be next. I have faith that the public has reached it's maximum of tolerance on the deviant sex cult and a return to basic values is imminent. The pendulum's return swing always appears slow at the very beginning.

That all depends on how warped your understand of marriage is.

Marriage is a contract. Nothing more.

You don't have to be different sexes to enter into contracts. You don't have to love each other.

Marriage is a contract. Quit making it more than it is.

 

[Silhouette]

Please refrain from calling me "warped" Bootney

 

[Syriusly]

No surprise that a another Trumpster despises older Americans.

Are you crying? Seriously?

Are you jerking off? Seriously?